The sin- and trespass-offerings; their difference from the
sacrifices of sweet savour

We come now to the sacrifices which were not sacrifices of sweet
savour -- the sin and trespass-offerings, alike in the great
principle, though differing in character and detail: this difference
we will notice. But first a very important principle must be
noticed. The sacrifices of which we have spoken, the sacrifices of
sweet savour, presented the identity of the offerer and the victim:
this identity was signified by the laying on of the hands of the
worshippers. But in those sacrifices the worshipper came as an
offerer, whether Christ or one led by the Spirit of Christ, and so
identified with Him in presenting himself to God -- came of his own
voluntary will, and was identified as a worshipper with the
acceptability and acceptance of his victim.

The sin-offering brought by a sinner, coming as having guilt
upon him

In the case of the sin-offering, there was the same principle of
identity with the victim by laying on of hands; but he who came, came
not as a worshipper, but as a sinner; not as clean for communion with
the Lord, but as having guilt upon him; and instead of his being
identified with the acceptability of the victim, though that became
subsequently true, the victim became identified with his guilt and
unacceptableness, bore his sins and was treated accordingly. This was
completely the case where the sin-offering was purely such. I have
added, "though that became subsequently true," because in many of the
sin-offerings a certain part identified them with the acceptableness
of Christ, which, in Him who united in His Person the virtue of all
the sacrifices, could never be lost sight of. The distinction between
the identity of the victim with the sin of the guilty, and the
identity of the worshipper with the acceptance of the victim, marks
the difference of these sacrifices and of the double aspect of the
work of Christ very clearly.

Four classes of sin and trespass offerings

I now come to the details. There were four ordinary classes of
sin and trespass-offerings, besides two very important special
offerings, of which we may speak hereafter: sins where natural
conscience was violated; that which became evil by the ordinance of
the Lord, as uncleannesses which made the worshipper inadmissible, and
other things (this had a mixed character of sin and trespass, and is
called by both names); wrongs done to the Lord in His holy things; and
wrongs done to the neighbour by breaches of confidence and the
like. The first class is in Leviticus 4; the second, attached to it,
down to verse 13 of chapter 5; the third, from verse 14 to the end;
the fourth, in the first seven verses of chapter 6.

Interrupted communion between God and His people distinguished
from individual sin and loss

The two other remarkable examples of sin-offering were the day
of expiation, and the red heifer, which demand an examination
apart. The circumstances of the offering were simple. In the case of
the high priest and the body of the people sinning, it is evident that
all communion was interrupted. It was not merely the restoration of
the individual to communion which was needed, but the restoration of
communion between God and the whole people; not the forming a relation
(the day of atonement effected that), but the re-establishment of
interrupted communion. Hence the blood was sprinkled before the veil
seven times for the perfect restoration of this communion, and the
blood also put on the horns of the altar of incense.

When the sin was individual, the communion of the people in
general was not interrupted, but the individual had lost his enjoyment
of the blessing. The blood was sprinkled therefore, not where the
priest approached -- at the altar of incense; but where the individual
did -- at the altar of burnt-offering. The efficacy of the
sin-offering of Christ is needed, but has been once for all
accomplished, for every fault; but the communion of the worshipping
body of the church, though lamed and hindered, is not cut off by the
individual sin; but when this is known, restoration is needed and the
offering demanded [1] . That the Lord may punish the
whole congregation, if the sin lie undetected, we know; for He did so
in Achan. That is, the power belonging to a state in which God is
ungrieved, is enfeebled and lost, and where conscience is awake and
the heart interested in the blessing of God's people, this leads to
search out the cause. But this is connected with the government of
God; the imputation of sin as guilt is another matter, but sin in
itself has always its own character with God. "Israel," said He,
"hath sinned;" but Achan only suffers when the evil is known and
purged, and blessing returns, though with much greater difficulty.
The truth is, that He who knows how to unite general government with
particular judgment, even where there is general faithfulness, puts in
evidence individual evil, or permits it not (a yet higher and happier
case); and, on the other hand, can employ the sin of the individual as
a means of chastening the whole.

God can let nothing pass

Indeed it appears to me very clear, in the case alluded to,
that, though the occasion of the chastening is evident in the sin of
Achan, Israel had shewn a confidence in human strength which was
chastised and shewn vain in the result, as divine strength was shewn
all-sufficient in Jericho. However that is, it is evident from the
detail of these sin-offerings that God can let nothing pass; He can
forgive all and cleanse from all, but let nothing pass. The sin hidden
to a man's self is not hidden to God; and why is it hidden to himself,
but that negligence, the fruit of sin, has stupified his spiritual
intelligence and attention?

God judges sins according to responsibility and what becomes
Himself

God judges sins according to the responsibility of those who are
judged. But in the sovereign work of grace God judges of sin in those
who approach Him, not according to what becomes man, but what becomes
Himself. He dwelt in the midst of Israel, and Israel must be judged
according to what becomes God's presence: our privileges are the
measure of our responsibility. Men admit to their society what becomes
themselves, and do not admit the base and corrupt, allowing their
evil, because it is suited to their estate so to act. And is God alone
to profane His presence by acting otherwise? Is all the evil which
man's corruption leads him into to find its sanction only in the
presence of God? No; God must (in order to make us happy by His
presence) judge evil, all evil, according to His presence, so as to
exclude it from it. Has the moral stupidity, which is the effect of
sin, made us ignorant of it in ourselves? Is God to become blind
because sin has made us so -- to dishonour Himself and make others
miserable, and all holy joy impossible everywhere, even in His
presence; to let pass the evil? Impossible. No; all is judged, and
judged in the believer according to the place grace has brought him
into.

God's compassion does not change His just judgment of evil

God is ignorant of nothing, and evil, however hidden to us, is
evil to Him. "All things are naked and open before the eyes of him
with whom we have to do." He may have compassion, enlighten by His
Spirit, provide a way of approach so that the greatest sinner may
come, restore the soul that has wandered, take account of the degree
of spiritual light, where light is honestly sought; but that does not
change His judgment of evil. "The priest shall make an atonement for
him concerning his sin wherein he erred and wist it not, and it shall
be forgiven him. It is a trespass-offering; he hath certainly
trespassed against Jehovah."

Differences in the details of the sin-offerings

I have now to remark certain differences in these
sin-offerings full of interest to us in the detail.

The bodies of those in which the whole people, or the high
priest (which came to the same thing, for the communion of the
whole body was interrupted), were concerned, were burnt without
the camp; not those for individuals, nor those which were for a
sweet savour, a sacrifice made by fire, though the whole were
burnt. But those for the high priest, or the whole people were:
they had been made sin, and were carried out of the camp as
such. The sacrifice itself was without blemish, and the fat was
burnt on the altar; but, the offender having confessed his sins
on its head, it was viewed as bearing these sins, and made sin of
God, was taken without the camp; as Jesus (as the epistle to the
Hebrews applies it) suffered without the gate, that He might
sanctify the people with His own blood. This was always the case
when the blood was brought into the sanctuary for sin.

One of the sacrifices, of which I do not enter into the
details here, was abstractedly and altogether viewed in this
light of sin, and was slain and burnt, fat and blood (part of the
blood having been first sprinkled at the door of the tabernacle),
and every part of it, without the camp. This was the red
heifer.

In the three other sacrifices, which concerned the whole
people, the bodies were burnt indeed without the camp, but the
connection with the perfect acceptance of Christ in His work, as
offering Himself, was preserved, in the burning of the fat on the
altar of burnt-offering, and thus gave us the full sense of how
He had been made sin indeed, but that it was He who knew no sin,
and whose offering in His most inmost thoughts and nature was in
the trial of God's judgment perfectly agreeable. But though the
fat was burnt on the altar to maintain this association and the
unity of the sacrifice of Christ, yet, maintaining the general
character and purpose of the diversity, it is not habitually
called [2] a sweet savour to Jehovah.

[1] Only we must always remember that in Christ it has
been done once for all. We have only a shadow of good things to
come, and in certain points, as in this, contrast -- a contrast
fully developed in Hebrews 10. In Hebrews, however, it is not
restoration after failure, but perfecting for ever, in the
conscience, which takes the place of repeated sacrifice. The
restoration of communion on failure is found in 1 John 2:1, 2,
founded on the righteous One being before God for us, and the
propitiation made.

[2] There is one case only where it is, Lev. 4: 31.

The sacrifice of the great day of atonement

There was a difference, however, between one of the three
last-mentioned sacrifices, the sacrifice of the great day of
atonement, and the two others mentioned in the beginning of
Leviticus 4. In the sacrifice of the great day of expiation the
blood was carried within the veil; for this was the foundation of
all other sacrifices, of all relationship between God and Israel,
and enabled God to dwell among them so as to receive the
others. Its efficacy lasted throughout the year -- for us, for
ever -- as the apostle reasons in the Hebrews; and on it was
based all the intercourse between God and the people. Hence the
blood of it was sprinkled on the mercy-seat, to be for ever
before the eyes of Him, whose throne of grace, as of
righteousness, that mercy-seat was thus to be. And God, by virtue
of it, dwelt among the people, careless and rebellious as they
were.

The efficacy of the blood of Jesus

Such also is the efficacy of the blood of Jesus. It is for
ever on the mercy-seat, efficacious as the ground of the
relationship between us and God. The other sin-offerings referred
to were to restore the communion of those who were in this
relationship. Hence, in Leviticus 4: 1-21, the blood was
sprinkled on the altar of incense, which was the symbol of the
exercise of this communion; the residue poured out, as habitually
in the sacrifices, at the altar of burnt-offering -- the place of
accepted sacrifice; the body, as we have seen, was burnt. In the
case of the offerings for the sin and trespass of an individual
the communion of the body was not directly in question or
interrupted, but the individual was deprived of the enjoyment of
it. Hence the altar of incense was not defiled or incapacitated,
as it were, in its use; on the contrary it was continually used.
The blood of these sacrifices, therefore, was put on the horns of
the altar of burnt-offering, which was always the place of
individual approach. Here, by Christ and the efficacy of the
sacrifice of Christ once offered, every individual soul
approaches; and, being thus accepted, enjoys all the blessing and
the privileges of which the church at large is continually in
possession. But for us the veil is rent, and as to conscience of
guilt we are perfected for ever. If our walk be defiled, water by
the word restores the communion of our souls, and that with the
Father and with His Son.

To speak of resprinkling of blood consequently upsets the
real position of the Christian, and throws him back on his own
imperfect state as to acceptance and righteousness. There may be
a repeated remedy, but one who is on that ground drops the
question of holiness, and makes continuous righteousness in
Christ uncertain. "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord
imputeth not iniquity," is unknown in such cases; as is
also that the worshipper once purged should have no more
conscience of sins. Were it so, as the apostle urges, Christ must
have suffered often. Without shedding of blood is no
remission.

The perfect identity between the priest and the victim

But there was another circumstance in these sin-offerings for
the individual. The priest who offered the blood ate the victim. Thus
there was the most perfect identity between the priest, and the victim
which represented the sin of the offerer. As Christ is both, the
eating by the priest shews how He did thus make it His own. Only, in
Christ, what was thus typified was first effected when victim, and the
priesthood, as exercised for us now in heaven, comes after. Still this
eating shews the heart of Christ taking it up as He does for us when
we fail, not merely its being laid vicariously on Him, though then His
heart took up our cause. But He cared for the sheep.

Christ's advocacy on high

The priest had not committed the sin; on the contrary, he had
made atonement for it by the blood which he had sprinkled, but he
identified himself completely with it. Thus Christ, giving us the most
complete consolation -- Himself spotless, and who has made the
atonement, yet identified Himself with all our faults and sins, as the
worshipper in the peace-offering was identified with the acceptance of
the sacrifice. Only that now, the one offering having been made once
for all, if sin is in question, it is in advocacy on high that He now
takes it up, and in connection with communion, not with
imputation. There is nothing more to do with sacrifice or blood
sprinkling. His service is founded on it.

Sin taken away, communion restored

The fat was burnt on the altar, where the priest was identified
with the sin which was on the offerer of the victim, but transferred
to it. It was lost, so to speak, and gone in the sacrifice. He who
drew nigh came with confession and humiliation, but, as regarded guilt
and judgment, it was taken up by the priest through the victim; and,
atonement having been made, reached not the judgment-seat of God, so
as further to affect the relation between God and the offender. Yet
here it was perpetual repetition. Communion was restored in the
acceptance of the sacrifice, as the sin which hindered the communion
was entirely taken away, or served only to renew (in a heart humbled
into the dust, and annihilated before the goodness of God) the
communion founded on goodness become infinitely more precious, and
established on the renewed sense of the riches and security of that
mediation there typically exhibited, but which Christ has accomplished
once for all, eternally for us, as sacrifice, and makes good as to the
blessings flowing from it continually on high; not to change the mind
of God to us, but to secure our present communion and enjoyment, in
spite of our miseries and faults, in the presence, the glory, and the
love of Him who changes not [1] .

The sin-offering stamped with the character of holiness

Some interesting circumstances remain to be observed. It is
remarkable that nothing was so stamped with the character of holiness,
of entire, real separation to God, as the sin-offering. In the other
cases, perfect acceptance, a sweet savour, and in some cases our
leavened cakes, are found therewith in the use of them; but all passed
in the natural delight, so to speak, which God took in what was
perfect and infinitely excellent, though it supposed sin and judgment
to be there; but here the most remarkable and exact sanctions of its
holiness were enjoined (Lev. 6: 26-28). There was nothing in the
whole work of Jesus which so marked His entire and perfect separation
to God His positive holiness, as His bearing sin. He who knew no sin
alone could be made sin, and the act itself was the most utter
separation to God conceivable, yea, an act which no thought of ours
can fathom, to bear all, and to His glory. It was a total
consecration of Himself, at all cost, to God's glory; as God, indeed,
could accept nothing else. And the victim must have been as perfect
as the self-offering was.

Christ as Sin-bearer and Sin-offering

As a sacrifice then for sins, and as made sin, Christ is
specially holy; as indeed, now in the power of this sacrifice, a
Priest present before God, making intercession, He is "holy, harmless,
separate from sinners, made higher than the heavens." Yet, so truly
was it a bearing of sins, and viewed as made sin, that he who carried
the goat before his letting loose, and he that gathered the ashes of
the red heifer, and sprinkled the water of separation, were unclean
until even, and must wash to come into the camp. Thus are these two
great truths in the sin-offering of Christ distinctly presented to us
in these sacrifices. For, indeed, how can we conceive a greater
separation to God, in Christ, than His offering Himself as a victim
for sin? And, on the other hand, had He not really borne our sins in
all their evil, He could not have put them away really in the
judgment.

Blessed for ever be His name who has done it, and may we ever
learn more His perfectness in doing it!

Various aspects of Christ in the sacrifices

We have, then, in these sacrifices, Christ in His devotedness
unto death; Christ in the perfection of His life of consecration to
God; Christ, the basis of the communion of the people with God, who
feeds, as it were, at the same table with them; and finally, Christ
made sin for those who stood in need of it, and bearing their sins in
His own body on the tree. We shall find that in the law of the
offerings the question is chiefly as to what was to be eaten in these
sacrifices, and by whom, and under what conditions.

The law of the offerings: what was to be eaten, by whom, and
under what conditions

The burnt-offering and the meat-offering for a priest were to be
entirely burnt. It is Christ Himself, offered wholly to God, who
offers Himself. As to the burnt-offering, the fire burnt all night
upon the altar and consumed the victim, the sweet-smelling savour of
which ascended thus to God, even during the darkness, where man was
far from Him, buried in sleep. This too is true, I doubt not, as to
Israel now. God has the sweet savour of the sacrifice of Christ
towards Him, while the nation forgets Him. However this may be, the
only effect for us of the judgment of the holy majesty of God -- the
fire of the Lord, now that Christ has offered Himself, is to cause the
sweet smell of this precious sacrifice to ascend towards God.

Of the other sacrifices, the meat-offering and the sin-offering,
the priest ate. The first pictures the saint in his priestly
character feeding on the perfectness of Christ; the last, Christ, and
even those who are His, as priests, in devoted love and in sympathy
with others, identifying themselves with their sin and with the work
of Christ for that sin. To Him alone it was, of course, to bear that
sin; but founded on His work our hearts can take it up in a priestly
way before God. They are connected in grace with it according to the
efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ; they enjoy the grace of Christ
therein. Christ entered into it directly for us, we in grace into what
He did. This is, however, a solemn thing. It is only as priests that
we can participate in it, and in the consciousness of what it
means. The people ate of the peace-offerings, which, though they were
holy, did not require that nearness to God. It was the joy of the
communion of believers, based on the redemption and the acceptance of
Christ. Therefore the directions for these of offerings follow those
given for the sacrifices for sin and trespass, although the
peace-offering comes before the sin-offering in the order of the
sacrifices, because, in the former, it required to be a priest to
partake of them. There are things which we do as priests; there are
others which we do as simple believers.

[1] There are points in the New Testament it may be well to
notice here. The Hebrews views the Christian as walking down here in
weakness and trial, but as perfected for ever by the work of Christ,
no more conscience of sins, and the priesthood is exercised not to
restore communion, but to find mercy and grace to help. 1 John speaks
of communion with the Father and Son. This is interrupted by any sin,
and Christ is our Advocate with the Father to restore it. The Hebrews
is occupied with access to God within the veil, the conscience being
perfect, and we enter with boldness, hence failure and restoration are
not in question. The Father is not spoken of. In John, as I have said,
it is communion and the actual state of the soul is in question. And
it is so true that it is the standing in Hebrews, that if one falls
away, restoration is impossible. In the tabernacle there was no going
within the veil. No such standing was revealed, and priesthood and
communion as far as enjoyed were mingled together, the Father
unknown.